The Mauritanian is a historical and legal drama (based on a true story) which premiered in 2021.
The title refers to a man from Mauritania who was detained at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay for more than fourteen years without any formal charge.
Here is some basic information about this drama:
** Director: Kevin MacDonald
** Screenplay: M. B. Traven, Rory Haines and Sohrab Noshirvani
** Based on the book Guantanamo Diary by Mohamedou Ould Slahi (sometimes spelled Salahi) (first version published in 2015) (second version published in 2017)
** Languages spoken: English, Arabic, French
** Run time: 129 minutes
The cast includes the following:
** Tahar Rahim as Mohamedou Ould Slahi - prisoner
** Jodie Foster as Nancy Hollander – lawyer for the defense
** Shailene Woodley as Teri Duncan – Nancy Hollander’s assistant
** Benedict Cumberbatch as Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch – military prosecutor
** Zachary Levi as Neil Buckland – a US government official
** Corey Johnson as Bill Seidel – a US colonel
** David Flynn as Kent – a US government official who cannot reveal his last name
** Clayton Boyd as a lawyer
** Saamer Usmani as Arjun
** Denis Menochet as Emmanuel
Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. Therefore, I feel free to mention some of them here.
While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here. Some details may have been added or changed or excluded for practical reasons or for dramatic purposes. But the basic story is true.
Mohamedou Ould Slahi was born in Mauritania in 1970. As an adult, he lived and worked abroad for a while. In November 2001, he was arrested while he was in Mauritania. This was the beginning of a long and horrible nightmare:
** For two weeks he was detained in the Parwan Detention Facility, a US prison in Afghanistan.
** For eight months he was detained and interrogated by Americans somewhere in Jordan.
** After being detained in Afghanistan and Jordan, he was moved to the US prison at Guantanamo Bay. He was there for more than 14 years: from 4 August 2002 until he was released and returned to Mauritania on 17 October 2016. During this time, he was never formally charged with any crime. When he was returned to Mauritania, his passport was not returned to him, so he cannot go anywhere.
The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not regarded as prisoners of war and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are regarded as enemy combatants. They are on Cuban soil rented by the US. They are not on American soil and therefore not protected by American rules and regulations.
The prison guards and the interrogators can do whatever they want. They cannot violate any rules or regulations, because there are no rules and regulation in this location, except those created by the US government. They can use “special methods” if a prisoner does not cooperate, if a prisoner does not want to talk, if a prisoner does not want to confess his crimes or reveal what he knows.
The US terminology for “special methods” is “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Critics use another word.
They call it torture.
Apparently, the US authorities did not think Mohamedou Ould Slahi had done anything wrong. But they believed he might know something that might be interesting for the US government.
They wanted him to reveal this hidden truth. When he said he did not have anything to tell them, they were not pleased. They told him to confess. When he did not cooperate, they introduced him to the enhanced interrogation techniques.
The interrogators have several ways to make a prisoner talk, including the following:
** sleep deprivation
** isolation
** exposing the prisoner to extreme temperatures
** beatings and sexual humiliation
** a mock execution on a boat, dipping the prisoner’s head into the water while the boat is sailing
** placing the prisoner in a small room and exposing him to loud music (heavy metal)
**the prisoner must stand up against a wall for hours
** the prisoner is placed on the floor in an unpleasant position for hours
** the prisoner is told that members of his family may be arrested and sent to prison if he does not cooperate
In this drama, we see glimpses of what can happen to a prisoner (a suspect) who is detained at Guantanamo Bay.
We also follow both sides of the legal case against Slahi:
** THE DEFENSE
We see how the lawyer Nancy Hollander is asked to defend the prisoner (the suspect).
** THE PROSECUTION
We see how Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch is asked to prosecute the case against the prisoner (the suspect).
While in prison, Slahi learns English. He is allowed to have pen and paper. He writes an account of his experiences in prison. The account is in English. The title is Guantanamo Diary.
His account is completed in 2005. The first version of his account is published in 2015. It is heavily redacted (censored) by the US authorities. He is still in prison when the book is published. He is not allowed to see a copy of his book.
A restored version is published in 2017, around one year after his release from prison.
When Nancy Hollander is trying to prepare her defense, she asks for evidence. What is the evidence against my client? At first, she is told she cannot see any evidence. Why not? For reasons of national security. When she insists, the government changes its tactics and releases many boxes filled with documents, maybe 10,000 pages! They are trying to drown the defense in a mountain of paper!
When Stuart Couch is trying to prepare his prosecution, he asks for evidence. What is the evidence against the suspect? At first, he is told he cannot see what he wants. Why not? It is not necessary. Trust your superiors when they tell you that the suspect is guilty. When he insists, some classified evidence is released to him. When he studies the evidence, he is horrified. It is clear to him that the statements made by the prisoner are the result of torture. He says: We cannot charge a man based on evidence which is created by using torture!
It is interesting to notice what is happening here. The defender and the prosecutor have almost the same experience when they ask to see the evidence. The government does not want any of them to know anything!
In 2010, the defense lawyer is allowed to ask for habeas corpus on behalf of her client. It is a hearing about the release of the prisoner or at least a transfer to American soil.
The government refuses to move the prisoner to American soil. The reason is obvious: if the suspect is on American soil, he is protected by US rules and regulations.
A federal judge, who rules in the case, says belief is not evidence. Just because the government believes the suspect knows something that might be of interest to the US government, it is not legal to detain him without a charge. The judge rules that the prisoner must be released. Does it happen? No!
The case drags on. Not for weeks, not for months, but for years. In October 2016, after six additional years, the prisoner is finally released and returned to his home in Mauritania. He was never charged with a crime. He was never tried in a court of law to determine if he was guilty or innocent.
What do reviewers say about this historical and legal drama? Here are the results of three review aggregators:
53 percent = Meta (critics)
74 percent = Meta (audience)
74 percent = IMDb
74 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (critics)
86 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (audience)
As you can see, the ratings are good but not great. They range from three to four stars on Amazon.
When you look at Meta and Rotten Tomatoes, you can see that there is a clear difference between the critics and the audience. The critics offer a lower rating than the audience. In this case, I have to side with the audience. In my opinion, the critics are too negative.
One of the negative critics is Peter Bradshaw who writes for The Guardian. I respect his reviews and often agree with him, but in this case, I cannot do that.
Peter Bradshaw offers only 2 of 5 stars; a rating of only 40 percent, which is a very harsh verdict. Why does he do that? At the end of his review, he explains his low rating with the following words:
“This movie is content with congratulating itself for being on the right side of history, with little attention paid to questions unanswered and history unresolved.”
This statement is odd. It does not really explain anything. What are the unanswered questions? In his review, he does not mention any questions which must be answered, so it is not clear what he means. What about the unresolved history? In his review, he does not mention any history which must be resolved, so again, it is not clear what he means.
This drama deserves more than the critics are willing to give it. Why do I say this? I have three reasons:
# 1. The script is well-written and the actors play their roles well.
# 2. The story is captivating, dramatic and often highly emotional.
# 3. It is a true story about an important topic.
I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars (100 percent).
PS # 1. The Report is a historical and legal drama which premiered in 2019. FBI agent Daniel Jones investigates the CIA’s use of torture on suspected terrorists. The report compiled by Jones and his team reveals a shocking truth!
PS # 2. The following articles are available online:
** Jess Bravin, “The Conscience of the Colonel,”
Wall Street Journal, 31 March 2007
** Ben Taub, “Guantanamo: The Darkest Secret,”
The New Yorker, 15 April 2019.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
# 1. Books
** The Torture Report: What the Documents Say about America’s Post 9/11 Torture Program by Larry Siems (2012)
** The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay by Jess Bravin (2013) (2014)
# 2. Films
** The Torture Question (2005) - an episode of Frontline
** Rendition (2007) - a historical drama
** Torturing Democracy (2008) - a documentary film
** Secrets, Politics and Torture (2015) - an episode of Frontline
*****
Mohamedou Ould Slahi
(born 1970)
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment